Kanwar Raj Singh (D) through LRS. Vs. Gejo. (D) through LRS. & Ors.

CITATION	CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9098 OF 2013
DATE OF JUDGMENT	January 02, 2024
COURT	Supreme Court of India
APPELLANT	KANWAR RAJ SINGH (D) TH. LRS
RESPONDENT	GEJO. (D) TH.LRS & ORS.
BENCH	Pankaj Mithal, Abhay S. Oka

INTRODUCTION

In this case, the Supreme Court of India concerns a sale deed executed by appellant Mr Kanwar Raj Singh in 1975 for a plot of property measuring 71 kanals and 8 marlas in Favor of Smt. Gejo. Mr. Singh, the appellant, questioned the legitimacy of the selling document. Their main argument was that the seller altered the sale document before it was registered to represent and record only one-third of the total acreage being sold. The point of contention was that the sale deed had allegedly been altered or tampered with before being formally registered. The appellants argued that the registered document did not accurately depict the real transaction between Smt. Gejo and Kanwar Raj Singh. They contend that a smaller portion of the transferred land, or only one-third of the total area, was shown on the fake sale deed. The appellant, Mr Singh, filed an appeal with the Indian Supreme Court, arguing that he should have the sale deed rejected or revoked because it had been modified.

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. The Trial Court decreed the suit and held that what was sold to the original plaintiff was the entire land measuring 71 kanals 8 marlas.
2. The first and eighth defendants preferred an appeal before the district court. 
3. The Additional District Judge granted the said appeal on August 23, 1984, ruling that the correction made in the sale deed was legitimate and not the result of fraud. 
4. The plaintiff preferred a second appeal before the High Court.
5. While the second appeal was pending, the plaintiff passed away. The initial plaintiff’s legal representatives are respondent nos. 1(i) and 1(v).
6. By the impugned judgment, the appeal was allowed, and the decree of the Trial Court was restored.

ISSUES RAISED

1. Interpretation of when the sale takes effect, whether from the date of execution or registration of the sale deed.
2. Does the agreement for sale only pertain to a 1/3rd share of the property, not the entire property?
3. Should the entry of the plaintiff’s name in the revenue records as the owner of the entire area be considered significant?
4.  When does the sale legally take effect: upon execution or registration of the sale deed?
5. Does the appellant’s primary argument for ownership rest on the description of the property in the registered sale deed?

CONTENTIONS OF APPEALENT

1. The appellant contends that the sale deed’s stated price is out of proportion to the large amount of real estate sold. This indicates that there might be a mismatch or error in the transaction information.
2. The appellant contends that the sale should legally commence from the date of registration of the sale deed, not from its execution. This distinction affects the timing of when ownership rights are transferred.
3. The appellant asserts that the agreement preceding the sale deed only covers the sale of a 1/3rd share of the property, rather than the entirety. This challenges the extent of the property transfer indicated in the sale deed.
4. The appellant relies on the precedent established in the case of Ram Saran Lall v. Domini Kuer to argue that the sale is complete only upon registration of the sale deed, influencing the interpretation of transaction completion.
5. The appellant stresses that other documentation, such as revenue records, should be subordinated to the description of the property contained in the registered sale deed as the definitive indicator of ownership.

CONTENTIONS OF REPONDENT

1. The defendants argued that the sale deed, duly executed and registered, is legally binding and accurately reflects the transaction details. They contended that if any discrepancies found between the sale price and property size are either justified or irrelevant.
2. The defendants asserted that the sale deed takes effect from the date of its execution, not just registration, and therefore, any rights or obligations arising from the sale deed should be considered from that date onward.
3. They countered the appellant’s claim by stating that the agreement preceding the sale deed indicates the sale of the entire property, contrary to the appellant’s interpretation.
4. They challenged the appellant’s interpretation of the precedent set in Ram Saran Lall v. Domini Kuer, suggesting that it does not apply or should be interpreted differently in the present case.
5. The defendants argued that the description of the property in the registered sale deed accurately represents the transaction and should be upheld as the basis for determining ownership.

JUDGEMENT

In this case, a sale deed was signed and paid for in full, but the seller unilaterally altered the document before registering it without the buyer’s permission. The Supreme Court maintained the original sale deed’s legality and emphasised that, as per Section 47 of the Registration Act, a registered sale deed takes effect on the day it is executed provided all consideration has been paid in full. The Court based its ruling on legal precedent, which included the cases of Satyender and Ors. v. Saroj and Ors. and Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918. As a result, the Court decided not to impose costs on either party, dismissing the appeal and upholding the High Court’s decision to close the case.

ANALYSIS

In this case, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal after considering the evidence and arguments made in court. This suggests that irrespective, the court rejected the appellants’ arguments and determined that the sale deed was still enforceable and legitimate in its original form following registration and alleged modifications. The Supreme Court’s ruling confirmed the legality of the 1975 sale deed between Kanwar Raj Singh and Smt. Gejo. The court’s decision to reject the appeal indicated that it did not find enough evidence to contest the document’s validity based on the purported modifications.

The judgment underscores the significance of procedural integrity and the sanctity of contractual agreements within property law. It elucidates the legal consequences of unilateral modifications made to a sale deed before registration, emphasizing the importance of consent and adherence to statutory provisions.

The judgment also underscores the principle of contractual autonomy and fairness. Unilateral alterations made by one party without the consent of the other undermine the fundamental tenets of contractual agreements. By deeming such changes irrelevant, the Court upholds the integrity of contracts and protects the interests of both parties.

All things considered, this ruling is a powerful reminder of the principles and procedural protections that support property transactions. It clarifies the complex interactions between precedent, judicial discretion, contractual autonomy, and statute provisions, improving our knowledge of property law and the practice of law.

CONCLUSION

In the conclusion of the judgment by the Supreme Court, it is stated that after careful examination of the case, the Court has found no errors or faults in the decision previously made by the High Court. This means that the Supreme Court agrees with the analysis and reasoning presented by the High Court in its judgment regarding the matter under consideration. 

The conclusion of the judgment by the Supreme Court confirms and upholds the ruling of the High Court, thereby bringing the legal dispute to a close. The decision of the Supreme Court is final, and the parties involved are expected to abide by it.

Furthermore, the statement “with no order as to costs” signifies that the Supreme Court has decided not to impose any financial burden, such as court costs or legal fees, on either party involved in the case.

REFERENCES

1. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/61297402/
2. https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2011/228/228_2011_7_1501_49155_Judgement_02-Jan-2024.pdf

This Article is written by Saurabh Trivedi, a student of Brahmanand P.G College, Kanpur; an Intern at Legal Vidhiya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.